Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunita Rani vs The State Of Rajasthan on 29 April, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:53222]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2333/2019
Sunita Rani W/o Late Shri Dr. Ravindra Kumar, Aged About 53
Years, R/o H.no. C-59-C, Freedom Fighter Colony, Neb-Sarai,
New Delhi- 110068 (Mobile No. 8800662860)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Animal Husbandry, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Directorate Of Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan
Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Barmer, Rajasthan.
4. The Director (Pension), Directorate Of Pension And
Pensioners Welfare Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Director (Gpf), Directorate Of General Provident
Fund, Jaipur.
6. The Director (Esi), Directorate Of Employees State
Insurance Corporation, Sodala, Ajmer Road, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG, with
Mr. Pawan Bharti
Mr. Mahaveer Pareek
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARAND ALI
Order Order pronounced on : 29/04/2025 Order reserved on : 24/10/2024
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs :-
(Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:53222] (2 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] "(a) By an appropriate writ order or direction, in the nature thereof, the respondents, may kindly be directed to immediately determine the entitlement of petitioner, being legally wedded wife of Shri Ravindra Kumar, Veterinary Officer, to receive all retirement/service benefits and family pension in terms of Rule 12 (b), 54, 60 to 62 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension), Rules 1996 and consequently the respondents may kindly be directed to release, said dues with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the delay in release of said benefits.
(b) By an appropriate writ order or direction, in the nature thereof, the respondents, may kindly be directed to release, death gratuity of her husband Shri Ravindra Kumar and to release leave encashment amount, ESI claim amount, and to release Family Pension to petitioner, by treating death of her husband on duty, in terms of her entitlement as per Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension), Rules 1996 and arrears thereof be ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
(c) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon,ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that petitioner is the legally wedded wife of Shri Ravindra Kumar son of Shri Ramdhan, who was the employee of the respondent Department of Animal Husbandry, Rajasthan and was holding the post of Veterinary (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (3 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] Officer and posted last at Veterinary Hospital, Bijrad, in Tehsil- Chohtan, District-Barmer. As per the facts narrated in the writ petition, in order to meet the urgent requirement at various veterinary hospitals in Rajasthan, the respondent Animal Husbandry Department proceeded to fill up the vacant posts of veterinary officers under Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Rules 1963 (for short, 'the Rules of 1963') and proceeded with selection process through a selection committee constituted by the Government and accordingly, an advertisement dated 26.08.1997 came to be issued by the department, wherein it was provided that the posts of Veterinary Officers are being filled up on urgent temporary basis for a period of 6 months or till regularly selected candidates are available through RPSC and there was stipulation in the said advertisement that the employees shall be paid regular pay scale and other benefits attached to the post. The petitioner, who was possessing all the requisite qualifications applied in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement and after facing the selection process, he was offered appointment as Veterinary Officer at Akola, Chittorgarh vide appointment order dated 24.09.1997 and he was given regular pay scale of Rs. 2000- 60-2300-75-3200-100-3500, which later came to be revised to the pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500 under the Rajasthan (Revised Pay Scale) Rules 1998 and further it came to be revised in the year 2008 in terms of the recommendation of pay commission. The husband of petitioner joined duties in compliance of the said appointment order on 03.10.1997. The services of the petitioner's husband were extended from time to time, but later on the respondent department passed an order dated 29.06.2000, (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (4 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] by which services of all such temporary appointed veterinary officers including that of petitioner's husband Shri Ravindra Kumar, working at various Veterinary Hospitals, came to be terminated w.e.f. 30.06.2000.
3. Being aggrieved of the termination of service various persons including the husband of the petitioner preferred writ petitions individually. The writ petition filed by the petitioner's husband was registered as Civil Writ Petition No. 2073/2000. However, unfortunately, all such writ petition, came to be rejected by Single Bench of this court vide order dated 19.07.2000. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Single Bench, the petitioners therein preferred various D.B. Civil Special Appeals before this Court. The special appeal filed by the husband of petitioner was registered as D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 972/2000. Upon hearing both the parties, all the special appeal filed on the subject came to be allowed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 18.04.2002, whereby services of the such veterinary officers were protected and the respondents were directed to allow continuance of services of such veterinary officers, including that of husband of petitioner. Being dissatisfied by the said order of the Division Bench, the State Government preferred a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP No. 15841-15851/2002, which came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.08.2002, as such, the judgment passed by the Division Bench attained finality. Thereafter in compliance of order of the Division Bench and in pursuance to directions issued in contempt petition filed by the petitioner's husband many others, the respondents (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (5 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] passed order dated 18.02.2003, whereby petitioner's husband Ravindra Kumar and many such other veterinary officers, whose services were terminated, were ordered to be re-instated in service and they were all allowed joining but without back wages and accordingly, husband of petitioner came to be given joining at Veterinary Hospital Bijrad (Barmer) in Tehsil-Chohtan.
4. The petitioner's husband continued to serve the respondent department on the post of Veterinary Officer and his salary also came to be revised from time in terms of the rules framed by the respondent Government for revised pay scales and he was also allowed regular annual increments and his GPF deductions and deductions towards ESI's subscription were also made as was done for regular employees.
5. The petitioner's husband Shri Ravindra Kumar while serving on the post of Veterinary Officer at Veterinary Hospital, Bijrad (Chohtan) suffered a cardiac arrest and breathed his last while on duty on 21.08.2017. The petitioner immediately submitted a letter dated 04.09.2017 alongwith death certificate of her husband to the office of respondent no. 3, by which petitioner informed the authority regarding demise of her husband. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of his demise, her husband had to his credit 20 years of continuous service and he had accumulated right to have pension and other service benefits akin to any regular employee. However, despite repeated representations and meeting with the authorities concerned for release of the service benefits/retiral benefits of the petitioner's husband and also for (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (6 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] allowing family pension to the petitioner, no heed was paid and therefore, the petitioner has approached this court through this writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of petitioner has died while in service and while on duty at Veterinary Hospital, Bijrad (Chohtan) in District Barmer and he was having about 20 years of service to his credit, as such, he was entitled for gratuity, pension and other service benefits and it does not make any difference, whether he was permanent or temporary, because Rule 12(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 makes even a temporary employee eligible for pension on completion of 10 years of service. Further Rule 54 of the said Rules of 1996 also make a government service eligible for pension/gratuity and his status as temporary does not debar him to claim the said benefit, but the respondents have not prepared pension case of petitioner for grant of family pension and so also for gratuity.
7. Learned counsel further submits that as per Rule 54 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner is certainly entitled for death gratuity of her husband by computing his total service as 20 years, within the table prescribed in Rule 54(b) of the Rules of 1996, as the husband of petitioner died while in service and he was having about 20 years of service on the date of death and petitioner is also entitled for family pension as per the provisions of Rules 60 to 62 of the Rules of 1996, but even then same is not released to her till date.
(Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (7 of 20) [CW-2333/2019]
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the payslip and Form GA-55A placed on record with the writ petition, it is evident that subscription amount was deducted from the monthly salary of petitioner towards State Insurance Policy (SIP) and there has been regular deduction from salary towards GPF and RPMF. The petitioner was granted annual increments during his entire service tenure and his pay was revised whenever revision pay rules were framed. Thus, it is clear that for all purposes, the services of the petitioner were akin to any other employee of the State Government and merely because the State Government did not pass any specific order regularizing the services of the petitioner, the same would not debar him or his heirs from claiming the service/retiral benefits and as such, the petitioner is entitled for claiming gratuity, state insurance claim, provident fund amount, leave encashment and other benefits as well as the family pension.
9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments and prayed for acceptance of the writ petition :-
(i) K. Anbazhagan & Anr. Vs. The Registrar General High Court of Madras & Anr. [2018 (9) SCC 293]
(ii) Rajkaran Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [2024 INSC 621]
10. A reply to the writ petition has been submitted, wherein it is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition, an amount of (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (8 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] Rs.12,25,804/- towards State Insurance, Rs.4,99,212/- towards leave encashment and Rs.8,74,475/- towards GPF has been paid to the petitioner. It is contended in the reply that the appointment of the petitioner's husband was on urgent temporary basis under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963 for a specific period and till availability of regularly selected candidates and as such, his services were terminated and only under the orders of the courts, he was reinstated in service and continued for all these years. Since the services of the petitioner's husband were never regularized, his case does not fall within the ambit of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1996 and therefore, he was not entitled for pension and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for family pension. It is contended that the appointment, which was made for a specific term or subject to specific condition, cannot be construed as one eligible for pension. Leaned AAG has reiterated the arguments made in the reply and prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed.
11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AAG, perused the material placed on record and the judgment cited.
12. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to discuss the relevant rules governing grant of pension and family pension to the employees of the Government of Rajasthan, which are Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 and Family Pension Rules. Rule 2 provides the categories to which these rules apply, which reads as under :-
(Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:53222] (9 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] "2. Application Save as otherwise provided in these rules, these rules shall apply to Government servants appointed to Civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Rajasthan State which are borne on pensionable establishments, but shall not apply to -
(a) persons in casual, daily rated and work-charged employment;
(b) persons paid from contingencies;
(c) persons entitled to the benefit of a Contributory Provident Fund;
(d) members of the All India Services;
(e) persons employed on contract except when the contract provides otherwise;
(f) persons whose terms and conditions of service are regulated by or under the provisions of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force; and
(g) Government servants appointed to the civil services of the State on or after the 1st day of January, 2004."
A bare reading of the aforesaid rules make it clear that none of the exclusion clause is applicable in the case of the husband of the petitioner and he being appointed on a post in connection with the affairs of the Rajasthan State which is borne on pensionable establishment, these rules are applicable to him.
Rule 12 and 13 of the Rules provide for qualifying service for pension, which read as under :-
"12. Commencement of qualifying service
(a) Except for compensation gratuity, a Government servant's service does not qualify till he has completed eighteen years of age.(Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:53222] (10 of 20) [CW-2333/2019]
(b) Subject to the provisions of these rules, the qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes over charge of the post to which he is first appointed, either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity.
13. Conditions subject to which service qualifies (1) The service of a Government servant shall not qualify unless he is appointed and his duties and pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government.
(2) For the purposes of sub rule (1), the expression "service" means service under the Government and paid by that Government from the Consolidated Fund but does not include service in a non-pensionable establishment, work-charged establishment and service in a post paid from contingencies, unless such service is treated as qualifying service by that Government.
The fact that arrangements are made for the recovery on the part of Government, of the whole, or part, of the cost of an establishment, or officer, does not affect the operation of this principle, provided that the establishment or officer is appointed, controlled and paid by the Government.
Service paid from Local Funds, Trust Funds, Fees and Commissions etc. does not qualify.
(3) In the case of a Government servant belonging to Central Government or any other State Government with whom the Rajasthan Government has entered into reciprocal arrangements, who is permanently transferred to a service or post to which these rules apply, the continuous service rendered under the Central Government or that State Government in (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (11 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] substantive, officiating or temporary capacity, shall qualify:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub rule shall apply to any such Government servant who is appointed otherwise than by deputation to a service or post to which these rules apply."
A reading of Rule 12 (b) is revealing that even the services in the temporary capacity are included in qualifying service. Further since he was appointed and his duties and pay were regulated by the Government and he was paid by that Government from the Consolidated Fund, his services would qualify for pension.
Rule 60 of the Family Pension Rules, provides applicability of the said rules, which reads as under :-
"60. Applicability The provisions of these rules shall apply to all Government servants on pensionable establishment, whether temporary or permanent, who are in service on the 1st day of October, 1996, or who enter service on or after that date, but shall not apply to -
(a) persons paid from contingencies;
(b) work charged staff;
(c) casual labour; and
(d) persons appointed on contract."
A perusal of the aforesaid rule makes it clear that the same are applicable for the temporary employees too.
13. The undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband was appointed on 24.09.1997 on the post of Veterinary Officer on urgent temporary basis under Rule 26 of the Rules of 1963 for a period of four months or till availability of regularly (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (12 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] selected candidates through RPSC, whichever is earlier. Admittedly, the regularly selected candidates were not available and as such the services of the petitioner's husband and the persons alike were extended from time to time. However, their services came to be terminated vide order dated 29.06.2000. Upon a challenge being made to the said termination order, the Single Bench of this court dismissed the writ petitions, however, the Division Bench reversed the order and directed the State Government to continue the services of the petitioner's husband and other such Veterinary Officers for the reason that even till that date, there was a huge gap in availability of candidates for the post of Veterinary Officer. The Division Bench further directed the State Government to explore appropriate steps to be taken to ensure that those employees were not thrown on road after putting in so many years of service. The State Government challenged the order of the Division Bench by filing an SLP, but the same was dismissed and as such, the judgment of the Division Bench attained finality. In pursuance of the aforesaid, the petitioner's husband and other Veterinary Officers continued to serve the respondent department and a period of nearly two decades passed till unfortunate demise of the husband of the petitioner while on duty due to cardiac arrest. In all these years, the State Government took no steps to regularize the services of these Veterinary Officers and resultantly, even after putting in two decades of continuous service, the petitioner's husband and similar persons were tagged as "temporary". However, the fact remains that for all the practical purposes, the services put in by the petitioner's husband were akin to any regular employee (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (13 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] working on the post of Veterinary Officer. A bare reading of the pay slip and Form GA-55A of the petitioner's husband is revealing that the petitioner was given regular pay scale for post, he was given annual increments, his pay was revised whenever the same was revised for "regular" employees, he was subscribed to State Insurance, RMPF and GPF and regular deductions were made from his pay towards these heads. Learned AAG failed to cite any feature distinguishing the services of the petitioner vis-a-vis a regular Veterinary Officer. There are compelling evidence on record which establishes that the petitioner's husband met the characteristics of regular government employee. He was granted regular pay scale from the beginning and was allowed annual grade increments and provided all other facilities which are available to a regular employee and that strongly indicate a formalised employee-employer relationship akin to permanent government employees and suggests a level of integration into the government's financial structure that goes beyond typical temporary employment.
14. The petitioner's husband's twenty-year tenure as a Veterinary Officer is undeniable. While service length alone is not conclusive, it is a significant factor, especially when considered with other employment aspects. This extensive service suggests a degree of permanence and integration within the government, directly contradicting the respondent's claim that the appointment was merely temporary and not equivalent to regular employment. The State Government's failure to regularize his service does not negate the petitioner's legitimate claim. The respondents' plea (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (14 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] that as the appointments were on an urgent temporary basis and therefore, no right can be claimed, is untenable. Given the employees' decades-long tenure, the term "temporary" is rendered meaningless. The position and its responsibilities were continuous in nature; employing individuals for decades, only to later claim the appointments were temporary, is unbefitting a model employer such as the State.
15. The view of this court is further fortified by the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajkaran Singh (supra), wherein it is held that :-
"27. Applying these principles to the case at hand, we find compelling evidence on record which establishes that the appellants meet the characteristics of regular government servants. Admittedly, the appellants were appointed on a regular pay scale. This factor strongly indicates a formalised employee-employer relationship akin to permanent government employees. In Ajay Hasia (supra), this Court observed that the nature of financial arrangements can indicate governmental character. The use of government pay scales for the appellants suggests a level of integration into the government's financial structure that goes beyond typical temporary employment. During the course of their service, the appellants received increments and promotions comparable to those of other government employees. This pattern of career progression mirrors that of regular government servants and suggests a deep and pervasive governmental control over their employment terms. In Ajay Hasia (supra), the degree of state control was highlighted as a key factor for identifying State instrumentalities. The chart(supra) provides positive evidence to show that the appellants' career paths were managed like permanent employees indicating a level of governmental oversight and control consistent with regular government service. Furthermore, the office order dated 12th March 2003, issued by the Deputy Director (AG), which transferred the SSD Funds Accounts to HQ SFF under the overall control of the Inspector General of SFF, along with the associated documents and clerical staff, demonstrates (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (15 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] that administrative recognition of the appellants' services was made which is integral to the governmental structure. This transfer of the entire cadre of SSD Fund to the HQ SFF aimed at ensuring better utilization and monitoring of the fund, fortifies the concept that the appellants possessed the characteristics of regular government servants.
28. The provisions of leave and other benefits, including grant of Assured Career Progression (ACP), further reinforces the similarity between the appellants' employment conditions and those of regular government employees. These benefits are typically associated with formalized, long-term employment relationships within the government sector. The proceedings of the Board of Officers dated 23rd June, 2006 unequivocally acknowledged that the terms and conditions, including the pay and allowances payable to SSD Fund staff, were fixed in March 1978 in accordance with those applicable to the ministerial staff employed in the Accounts Section of SSF HQ Estt. No.
22. The extension of Assured Carrer Progression (ACP) and alignment of terms and conditions with regular government employees, in particular, is an affirmative action indicating that the government viewed and treated these employees as long-term assets, despite their ostensibly temporary status. Substantially, the appellants' charter of duties involving the maintenance of accounts for the SSD Fund, can be considered as an assignment of public importance closely related to governmental functions. This aligns with another test laid down in Ajay Hasia (supra), which considers the public importance and governmental nature of the functions performed. The management of funds generated from the personal provident fund contributions of the entire SFF cadre is a critical function that has a direct bearing on the public interest and the effective operation of government services.
29. Indisputably, the appellants have served SFF HQ Estt. No. 22 for over three decades. While the duration of service alone may not be determinative, it is a significant factor when considered in conjunction with the other aspects of their employment. Such long-term service suggests a level of permanence and integration into the governmental structure that belies their classification as temporary employees. The appellants performed duties similar to those of regular employees in the Accounts Section of SFF HQ Estt. No.22. This similarity in job functions further blurs the line between the appellants' status and that of regular government employees, suggesting that the distinction may be more formal than substantive. The extension of (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (16 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] significant elements from the 4th and 5th CPC to the appellants further cements their plea of being employed in governmental functions.
30. Learned ASG appearing for the respondents has argued that the recruitment, selection, and promotion processes for SSD Fund employees did not follow the procedures used for regular employees and that the appellants were not subjected to probation or given confirmation letters as permanent employees. However, this Court finds such argument to be untenable as it fails to account for the substantive nature of the appellants' employment over an extended period running into three decades. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and Others v. Union of India, wherein this Court noted;
"5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status.
6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (17 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case. Paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder:
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128], R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (18 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations."
(emphasis supplied)
31. As held in Vinod Kumar (supra), "the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time."
32. This Court fully associates with this principle and finds it wholly applicable in the present case, especially in light of the administrative orders and Board proceedings referred to supra that have consistently treated the appellants as equivalent to regular government employees. The mere classification of employees as 'temporary' or 'permanent' is not merely a matter of nomenclature but carries significant legal implications, particularly in terms of service benefits and protections.
33. In the present case, the totality of circumstances indicates that despite their formal classification as temporary employees, the appellants' employment bears substantial hallmarks of regular government service. The denial of pensionary benefits solely on the basis of their temporary status, without due consideration of these factors, appears to be an oversimplification of their employment relationship with the government. This approach runs the risk of creating a class of employees who, despite serving the government for decades in a manner indistinguishable from regular employees, are deprived of the benefits and protections typically accorded to government servants.
34. Thus, we are of the opinion that the denial of pensionary benefits to the appellants is not tenable or justifiable in the eyes of law as the same is arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is indeed relevant to note that the appellants' batch (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (19 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] seems to be the last in their genre of SSD Fund temporary employees and thus, manifestly, the direction to extend the benefits of the 6th CPC and the RP Rules to the appellants shall not form a precedent so as to have a detrimental effect on the financial health of the SSD Fund."
16. In this background and guided by the principle laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this court is of the considered opinion that the services rendered by the petitioner's husband on the post of Veterinary Officer deserves to be considered at par with regular employees, which makes him entitled for all the service/retiral benefits and family pension as admissible to regular employees. The petitioner has put in service of two decades and that period is sufficient to qualify for grant of pension/family pension. Once it is established that the petitioner is entitled for family pension, obviously she would also be entitled for gratuity.
17. Resultantly the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the services rendered by the petitioner's husband at par with the regularly appointed Veterinary Officers and he shall be entitled for all the service/retiral benefits including pension as accorded to regular employees. The respondents shall take into account the entire service period of the petitioner's husband for the purpose of calculation of pension and other service benefits. They shall determine and pay all the service/retiral benefits relating to the deceased employee including State Insurance, GPF, Leave Encashment and Gratuity to his wife, i.e. the present petitioner. This court is apprised that some of these benefits have already been paid. The remaining amount shall be released immediately. The respondents are further directed to grant family (Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:53222] (20 of 20) [CW-2333/2019] pension to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules of 1996 while treating the death of her husband on duty within a period of three months. The arrears of pension shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of commencement of pension. The petitioner shall be entitled for interest on the arrears amount at the rate of 7% per annum.
18. No order as to costs.
(FARJAND ALI),J 378-Pramod/-
(Downloaded on 09/05/2025 at 10:09:53 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)